Considering the fetish value of EOD robots

Abstract

A B S T R A C T G This article explores how the Explosive Ordnance Disposal(EOD) robot is represented to the mass media by the US military as a 'life-saving device'. Such descriptions of the EOD robot discursively organize it in relation to other objects and actors, endow them with values and capacities, and ultimately situate them in social action. Drawing from US newspaper articles and Department of Defense press releases, the article highlights how the robot descriptions create a sense of automation and agency on the part of the remotecontrolled devices that is actually beyond the technology. It is then argued that the IED-combating robot functions as a kind of fetish. Following Baudrillard, the fetish value of the robot stems not from a misunderstanding of its actual or 'real' capacities but rather its positive valuation according to a code of functionality that rests upon the risk-transfer labour of the robot. G This article argues that the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) robots currently being deployed by primarily US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan can be understood as a kind of fetish object. EOD robots are essentially remote control devices used to either disable or detonate improvised explosive devices (IEDs) at a distance. Though military robots are increasingly being developed with a wider range of sensor devices and 'weaponized', these robots are in no way autonomous devices. Nonetheless, much of the discourse addressing these

Re-evaluating the Form and Communication of Social Robots

“…As such, each time these robots complete a controlled explosion, defuse a bomb, or provide vital surveillance footage, their value rises and the bond felt with the robot will increase, alongside a sense of respect for and trust in the machine's abilities. EOD robots are not designed to be like humans or animals, but the re-lationship between operator and robot has nevertheless been compared with various kinds of human-dog relations, including with pets, hunting dogs and also working police dogs [46] [50]. Ian Roderick argues, based on his detailed analysis of news reports and US Department of Defense press releases, that peoples' readings of non-autonomous EOD robots as agents stem from the social value that results from their positioning as saving people from injury or death, as opposed to from a mistaken impression that they are autonomous based on what he describes as a "proto-anthropological" process [46].…”

“…EOD robots are not designed to be like humans or animals, but the re-lationship between operator and robot has nevertheless been compared with various kinds of human-dog relations, including with pets, hunting dogs and also working police dogs [46] [50]. Ian Roderick argues, based on his detailed analysis of news reports and US Department of Defense press releases, that peoples' readings of non-autonomous EOD robots as agents stem from the social value that results from their positioning as saving people from injury or death, as opposed to from a mistaken impression that they are autonomous based on what he describes as a "proto-anthropological" process [46]. However, I would argue that the words that soldiers use to describe their robots demonstrate a level of anthropomorphism and/or zoomorphism, alongside a sense of valuing the robot for the danger it faces to keep humans safe.…”

“…It is the particular machine that is respected and trusted as a team member. In part, as Roderick suggest, this is likely to be because of the situation in which robot and human are embedded, placing the robot as a lifesaver [46]. However, an anthropomorphic response is also a presence, as one soldier stresses while discussing a robot named Frankenstein, "He was part of our team, one of us.…”

Re-evaluating the form and communication of social robots: the benefits of collaborating with machinelike robots

“…As such, each time these robots complete a controlled explosion, defuse a bomb, or provide vital surveillance footage, their value rises and the bond felt with the robot will increase, alongside a sense of respect for and trust in the machine's abilities. EOD robots are not designed to be like humans or animals, but the relationship between operator and robot has nevertheless been compared with various kinds of human-dog relations, including with pets, hunting dogs and also working police dogs [46] [50]. Ian Roderick argues, based on his detailed analysis of news reports and US Department of Defense press releases, that peoples' readings of non-autonomous EOD robots as agents stem from the social value that results from their positioning as saving people from injury or death, as opposed to from a mistaken impression that they are autonomous based on what he describes as a "proto-anthropological" process [46].…”

“…EOD robots are not designed to be like humans or animals, but the relationship between operator and robot has nevertheless been compared with various kinds of human-dog relations, including with pets, hunting dogs and also working police dogs [46] [50]. Ian Roderick argues, based on his detailed analysis of news reports and US Department of Defense press releases, that peoples' readings of non-autonomous EOD robots as agents stem from the social value that results from their positioning as saving people from injury or death, as opposed to from a mistaken impression that they are autonomous based on what he describes as a "proto-anthropological" process [46]. However, I would argue that the words that soldiers use to describe their robots demonstrate a level of anthropomorphism and/or zoomorphism, alongside a sense of valuing the robot for the danger it faces to keep humans safe.…”